Criticism of anti-homosexuality law is based on lies

[ad_1]

Following Presidential assent to the anti-homosexuality law, we have witnessed a torrent of criticism of the legislation from our partners led by US President Joe Biden, Mr. Josep Borrell Fontelles for the European Union and Mr. Andrew Mitchell for the UK. , among many others.

After carefully reading their statements, I am convinced that their ideas about the law are unfortunately not based on its actual provisions.

President Biden has said that as a result of the law, innocent Ugandans now fear going to hospitals, clinics or other facilities to receive life-saving medical care for fear of being the target of hateful reprisals.

While the law criminalizes homosexuality, it does not alter the confidential doctor-patient relationship, governed by the Hippocratic oath, and the constitutionally guaranteed right to life, which includes the right for everyone, including homosexuals, to seek and obtain treatment anywhere. in Uganda.

It is important to clarify that while there is a rush to link the law to the denial of medical services to anyone, the law, in fact, contains no such provision.

Article 3 of the law lists very precisely the circumstances in which the death penalty, which is incorrectly said to apply generally to all persons convicted of homosexuality, in fact only punishes cases of sexual abuse of children, among other attacks on vulnerable people, including the elderly, people living with mental disabilities, among others.

There is no section of the law in which the crime of homosexuality, without the ingredient of child victims, is punishable by death. In Uganda, the protection of children from all forms of harm is dear to the citizens, which is why their representatives enacted this law to create a safe environment for all children.

Mr Fontelles had criticized the law for introducing harsh penalties, including the death penalty which the EU opposes in all circumstances. It is hoped that the situation of the death penalty is now clarified.

Then there was the reference to the bill about to thwart efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, as Mr Mitchell said for the UK when he said the legislation would roll back the fight against HIV/AIDS.

This is to reassure Mr. Micthell that there is nothing in the law that talks about stopping health insurance or discriminating against people living with HIV/AIDS.

Parliament is, in fact, surprised that there is this widespread idea around the world that the law is intended to thwart the fight against HIV/AIDS, but it is interesting to note that none of the critics specify which section particular condemns people living with HIV/AIDS. Aid, because there is none.

This line was unfortunately taken by Ms Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS, who in a joint statement asserted without specific reference to any article of the law, that Uganda’s progress in its response to HIV is now seriously compromised and that the anti-homosexuality law 2023 will hinder the health education and awareness that can help end AIDS.

For Ms. Byanyima, twisting the law and peddling the unsubstantiated reference to the enactment as being against people living with HIV/AIDS is very interesting.

While her diplomatic stature means there are a variety of constituencies she has to appeal to, is it entirely absurd that she would choose to twist a case involving her home country.

Wasn’t it possible for her to take extra care and at least make some factual criticism, instead of joining in on the beating party with no real basis?

It is in fact those who want to refuse to support Uganda’s largely successful HIV/AIDS interventions who intend to kill HIV/AIDS patients based on lies.

The Ugandan Parliament is sovereign and while that does not necessarily mean it will not engage with other stakeholders, the voice that ultimately reigns must be that of the people who sent the representatives to legislate on their behalf. .

The flurry of messages calling for this terse action or the other against a legally established Parliament concerned with the sovereignty of its citizens does not square well with the cherished principle of sovereignty which provides that states have discretionary power to manage their affairs, including legislative processes, without undue influence or twisting of arms.

It is indeed all the more absurd that democratic decisions by an independent Parliament can lead to the revision of assistance to people living with HIV/AIDS.

Would the EU and the US prefer sovereign parliaments in Africa that would legislate first for the interests of Europe and America or for the interests of their own citizens?

Mr. Chris Obore is the Director of Communications and Public Affairs of the Ugandan Parliament.

[ad_2]